"Operation Legend" Launches - Sending a "surge" of federal agents to U.S. Cities... "No Choice" ???

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
9,348
The dem leaders in those cities are doing nothing about it. Which is why trump feels he must do something.
The dem leaders in nyc are rounding up people and throwing them in their own vans for chrissakes. Tens of thousands of people have been arrested. Stop buying media propaganda meant to make someone look good to a certain class of people in an election year.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
9,348
The pro-riot faction would have slightly more credibility if they weren’t always forced to lie and backpedal to make their case. You’d think it would bother them a little more.

There are no secret police out arresting innocents. There are properly badged and identified officers of the law serving warrants on and arresting known criminals. There is zero evidence otherwise, and some of the people here might want to examine why they believe such a thing.
Because trump said so? That isn’t what the people on the street are saying and I’ll believe the people on the street and the video evidence taken by people on the street over the lying mouths of the administration any day.

no one is pro riot.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
9,348
Idk how many ways I can tell you this...the dem government officials should have stopped this on day one not urge it on.
On day one the protests were entirely peaceful and protected under the first amendment
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
9,348
I apologize for the apparent attempt to mislead. I think the point about insurance not bridging the gap from destruction back to a healthy business still stands, but I should have made the point in a clear and honest way.

Did you manage to find any videos to support your claim of federal troops beating and tear gassing innocent protesters?
There have been videos posted by me and others for weeks now. You people just dismiss and justify them. So tell me why would I take an hour out of my day to repost them for you?
 






Last edited:

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
9,348
Pre-crime arrest is sketcky, for sure....

Criminal intent does not negate arrest though. Law can argue that the protesters were conspiring to commit crime.

Evidence in support of that charge would be the physical evidence of already destroyed property (to justify conspiracy).

Now, where's that blasted time masheen?!

You still need evidence to accuse and prove conspiracy other then simply being somewhere. Sorry.
 






Last edited:

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,069
Pre-crime arrest is sketcky, for sure....

Criminal intent does not negate arrest though. Law can argue that the protesters were conspiring to commit crime.

Evidence in support of that charge would be the physical evidence of already destroyed property (to justify conspiracy).

Now, where's that blasted time masheen?!
The conspiracy argument is very thin. Basically that would never hold up in court. But up is down these days so who knows.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055
Pretty sure that's been covered.
And yet, it hasn’t, really.

It's unconstitutional to arrest or even detain someone without cause. So when a government official tells you they are proactively arresting people, they are telling you they have no cause.
No, see, when you actually read the entire “proactive” quote, you see that it didn’t mean they were just hauling people off the street. The federal police were being proactive by arresting criminals when local authorities were not. This has already been established, hasn’t it?

If you insist on interpreting that quote to mean what you think it does, then do you have any evidence that the feds are actually arresting randos for no reason? Other than the one quote? If the police were doing what you say, to the extent you say, where are the testimonies?
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,432
thanks that’s what I was looking for. To be clear though it’s not pre crime, it’s a 52 day on going crime that they are counter acting. You can be detained and searched for probable cause by law, if charges are pressed and evidence found then that’s when your rights are read to you I believe. Also if a protest is declared a riot then they have the right to use riot dispersing tactics

no tears shed from me over commies being arrested, you want to throw bombs at cops and buildings, don’t come crying when you get arrested
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,365
On day one the protests were entirely peaceful and protected under the first amendment
Uh huh..


George Floyd death: Why do some protests turn violent?
Most of the protests began peacefully - and several stayed peaceful. But in a large number of cases, demonstrators clashed with police, set police cars on fire, vandalised property or looted shops. The National Guard has activated 5,000 of its personnel across 15 states and Washington DC.

That was May and now we are nearing August with no real end in sight in some cities. Don’t forget about chaz..

 






Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
570
The conspiracy argument is very thin. Basically that would never hold up in court. But up is down these days so who knows.
Inverse Universe these these days...

Lol it may not "hold up in court" but it may be probable cause for arrest (with charges later dropped).
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,432
These protests have been violent since day one. Literally thousands of these people should be in jail for theft arson assault and vandalism, attempted murder, murder as well as simple political terrorism. Yet none of them are. True? Nobody has gone to jail for breaking the law and they want to cry about even being arrested, or rather CNN and Washington post cry for them
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
9,348
And yet, it hasn’t, really.



No, see, when you actually read the entire “proactive” quote, you see that it didn’t mean they were just hauling people off the street. The federal police were being proactive by arresting criminals when local authorities were not. This has already been established, hasn’t it?

If you insist on interpreting that quote to mean what you think it does, then do you have any evidence that the feds are actually arresting randos for no reason? Other than the one quote? If the police were doing what you say, to the extent you say, where are the testimonies?

Read the whole exchange. In context. Legal scholars disagree with you.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
9,348
I’m confused. The point of the riots is to ensure Trump’s re-election? Shouldn’t you be more against them?
I’m not so easily put in a box huh?

what did I say on day two? That this was a setup, people needed to abandon ship, because it was being Orchestrated and used to demonize the left side of the political spectrum. So far everything that’s happened has confirmed all that as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know what else you want me to say.

my take on this does not mean I’m going to be okay with what the administration or government in general is doing in response to this. Two seperate issues. And people have a first amendment right to protest.
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,069
And yet, it hasn’t, really.



No, see, when you actually read the entire “proactive” quote, you see that it didn’t mean they were just hauling people off the street. The federal police were being proactive by arresting criminals when local authorities were not. This has already been established, hasn’t it?

If you insist on interpreting that quote to mean what you think it does, then do you have any evidence that the feds are actually arresting randos for no reason? Other than the one quote? If the police were doing what you say, to the extent you say, where are the testimonies?
Yeah we shouldn't need interpreters to understand what Chad Wolf meant. We shouldn't need to change the definition of proactive either.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055

Read the whole exchange. In context. Legal scholars disagree with you.
They disagree with me on what the DHS meant by proactive? Whoop-di-do. This isn’t some point of law we’re debating, but what the DHS meant by proactive. What extra translational authority do these lawyers have in this situation that I don’t? All we have is the statement by the DHS, who have added that the arrests they are making are based on cause, which, unless you have some other evidence, means that your interpretation of their words is wrong, and that the arrests are constitutional.

Now, other than your self-serving interpretation of one comment, an interpretation that is not founded on any piece of evidence that you’ve provided to this point, what reason do you have for believing that the feds are unconstitutionally arresting innocent protesters?
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055
And people have a first amendment right to protest.
Absolutely, but they don’t have any right to set fires and attack people.

Most of the people who are being arrested have clear ties to Marxist and anarchist groups. How does that square with the idea that is a setup?
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,055
Yeah we shouldn't need interpreters to understand what Chad Wolf meant. We shouldn't need to change the definition of proactive either.
No one has changed the meaning of proactive. In the context of the entire statement, and given the lack of evidence that he meant anything other than what he said, that they were having to act on their own, without the usual support from local authorities, your interpretation is looking more and more stupid all the time.
 






Top